|
|
|
|
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:06:40 PM | JrB : did you mean to say "......live up to THEIR moral and ethical standards"?
I know many "believers" that do live up to their standards: that's all that matters. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:14:40 PM | It's called RELIGION and SUPERNATURAL Forum
It is for the discussion and debate of all topics relating to spirituality and the "unknown". Topics that would not fit into the science forum or the politics forum..etc....
I agree with Oldsoul that there does seem to be some sort of assumption that "god" means the judeo-christian god (eg: Yahweh, Jehovah...etc). As a "non-christian" (wierd label and not sure if it's accurate) I find this a bit annoying and insulting, at times. I also agree with Deerdog that some threads do not call for debate, but merely sharing...and I find it a bit annoying also that experiences/opinions can't be shared without debate..especially when by their very nature they are subjective. Now if they are presented as "exclusive truth" ..well, have at er!
I really don't understand why debate is considered attack... if one makes a claim then they should be prepared to back it up. "Persecution" is WAY too strong a term to be used on here..it is an online forum, not eggs thrown at a window, or a job lost through prejudice and intolerance, or a beating or imprisonment.
Other than the few fundies which prowl here at times I believe we all have a lot to learn from one another. THAT is the beauty of different points of view. But like regular life I think most people are busy thinking about a retort instead of listening a lot of the time. I am guilty of this myself. I think also that there are quite a few who are so tied up with their own "identity" in any particular religion or belief system(ego) that any criticism of said belief system seems like a personal attack. This is NOT the case, but when seen like that it quickly disintegrates into personal issues. And then the thread goes quickly off-topic.
Just my thoughts and observations. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:34:27 PM | yes i love the debate but the one line that has been repeated in some form that seams to take all the threads to animosity ..is the line by nonbelievers that no clear thinking /intelligent person can believe in a god ... ive seen it a hundred times and then the thread goes down hill from there now i have seen the other side attack but not nearly as much ... this kind of thing is an attack and not debate ... im the OP and i dont think this thread has a topic any more i dont consider it hijacked as it was my intent for it to run a muck but i do think it has served a purpose as there have been many points made and it has remained pretty civil... i havent seen the insulting of peoples intelligence in it yet ...but theres still time ....and i think there have been people posting that have at least considered other peoples right to their opinion ...if not the merit to their opinion...this is what id like to see along with some respect for ones original topic
some try to justify it with ...IMO but one can even be attacked by opinion ...ie if i said ...its my opinion that you are an stupid asshole ...to anyone ...that would be an attack ... not debate...and attacks only hurt the ones that attack | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 54 | |
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:40:14 PM | | I disagree deerdog, its not the non-believers attacking them for being stupid, its normally the believers who cant think outside of the 'its true cos its in the bible' box. You cant debate with people like that because its circular logic and you cant change their point of view. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:53:45 PM | Nergal why is it important to convince them to think out of their box ..why does what they think mater to you ... are you not trying to forse feed them your opinion just as they have done in the past ...debating is telling your view ..debating seldom changes their mind ...debating is not respecting their view but it is respecting their right to their view ... you have just did what i am talking about and you didnt even use IMO ...you said their opinion had circular logic ... my friend that is only your opinion ... their logic makes sense to them just as yours does to you... only when you ae intent on proving your side the only right one ...debating becomes preaching ... your last statement was not a debate it was preaching IMO
everything is circular even all logic ..IMO | |
|
| why not?
Posted: 1/4/2008 1:56:34 PM | I love that idea!: circular logic 
I wonder which kind of logic agnostics have..... Linear?
My logic has no limits ( this is why I find some people's thinking ( Scorpio Mover for instance) too much of a strain to comprehend).
Faith( heart) and Logic ( mind/ wisdom): shouldn't they be balanced ?
oh, bye the way, religion is too much of a personal matter to be opened to a fair debate. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:01:20 PM |
The apology is in post 7 of the "Does anyone have a Miracle story they would like to share????" thread.
So, you are asking why people hijack a thread to poop on the party, I think. Well, hijacking is incredibly common. That's just how it goes. As for the venomous aspect of it, there are people who make no reservations about their distaste for religion, its claims, its history, its abuses, its doctrine, etc. If it gets out of hand, the posts can be reported and removed. That is also incredibly common.
Hmmm I don't see any bad posts in the "Does anyone have a Miracle story they would like to share????" - no attacks, maybe they were removed by the mods?? | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:11:31 PM | You say that as if it really counts, as if it really matters, as if it's important that people live to your standards. That is just soooo funny. POF doesn't have an irony icon, so this will have to do
Yes to me it does really count. It is important to me that people live to my standards. Acutally that's all that really matters to me and I could care less what you or anybody else things about that. I can see how that might be confusing for you. You still consider your personal attacks to be a smooth debating style I see. I'm here for my entertainment and amusement and you certainly continue to amuse me with your attacks on me personally and others as opposed to attacking our views and opinions. That often happens here when a weak debator has run out of cognitvely thought out replies to support his position to his opposition. Come to think of it, awhile back you called me a moron I believe and justified it as other than name calling because it was a fact. I asked you to prove your fact and you have yet to do that even though you demand evidence or proof when others claim fact or exclusivity of truth. As we have not seen you even to attempt to prove that I'm a moron, I suppose we can conclude that indeed your little childish tirade was just more of your school yard bullying name calling.
JrB : did you mean to say "......live up to THEIR moral and ethical standards"?
I know many "believers" that do live up to their standards: that's all that matters.
Did not mean to say that at all. My moral and ethical standards are what matters when I judge the morals and ethics of others. Quite simply they equal or exceed mine, in which case I may admire them, or they fall what I see as below my standards, in which case I do not admire them. And that is all that matters to me and as I just answered the personal attacker above, I really don't care what anybody else on the planet thinks about that.
...you said their opinion had circular logic ... my friend that is only your opinion ...
This really is quite difficult for you to get isn't it. Every thing on this forum my friend is only the poster's opinion. Jeez. You're not actually expecting usable information on a religion/supernatural forum are you? Are you really? It's all opinion and belief my friend.
| |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 59 | |
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:11:35 PM | | You completely missed my point deerdog, I didnt say anything about trying to get them to think outside the box. I was simply pointing out that are lot of arguments are caused by it. And you are supposing a lot about my intents, which I find insulting. I dont preach, thats saying my viewpoint is the only right way to follow, and I've never said that. I have always pointed out its my worldview that I am exploring. On a thread which is looking at psychological and philosphical viewpoints, to have someone coming in preaching the Word of the Lord is plain stupid and ignorant. IMHO! If someone uses the Bible to support another argument in the Bible, thats textbook circular logic, not my opinion but a statement of fact. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:25:52 PM | | nergal i promise im not trying to insult anyone..especialy you i find your post to be thought full even when i dont agree just trying to get both sides to see that it is insulting when logic and intelligence comes into the debate ...as in it is not intelligent/logical to see things that way..just as stating things as facts...i have to go now but its been great ... | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:46:16 PM | Quite simply they equal or exceed mine, in which case I may admire them, or they fall what I see as below my standards, in which case I do not admire them. And that is all that matters to me and as I just answered the personal attacker above, I really don't care what anybody else on the planet thinks about that
WOW: here is one big Ego!
and if you do not care about my opinion, it's just fine. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 2:51:09 PM | Quite simply they equal or exceed mine, in which case I may admire them, or they fall what I see as below my standards, in which case I do not admire them.
Must be quite busy doing all that measuring... 
Self admiration ....kiss my Aura Dora - its real angora.. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/4/2008 5:27:04 PM |
WOW: here is one big Ego!
and if you do not care about my opinion, it's just fine.
Must be quite busy doing all that measuring...
Self admiration ....kiss my Aura Dora - its real angora..
lol. Some debating styles there. Expected here on the religious/supernatural forum. Somebody's lord forbid anybody would discuss the issues without personal attacks. hahaha | |
|
| If you don't care......
Posted: 1/4/2008 5:34:56 PM | which attacks?
I am not bashing you, I am bashing your ego 
You said you didn't care anyways.....especially since I am scoring too low for you and your standards: if one makes stupid statements, one should expect stupid answers......AND: I am not saying that you are stupid, just that your statements are stupid ( FOR ME - not for everybody) and that your Ego is a bit out of average size ( TO ME - not to everybody).
Even if I was breaking a couple of rules, that would be just in line with my character.....there must be someone that breaks the rules, overwise which rules would they be?, if nobody was teh exception....
If they have not banned me yet....I guess I must serve a purpose.
Deeerdog 1: should we perhaps switch the title to "debate or no debate", "bashing or not bashing"??
How about......"If you don't care....."
Going back to the subject ( which wasn't that clear anyway.....), I stand by my principle, that Religion is too much of a personal subject to be discussed in the context of an open debate. You can debate rules, cakes, events, philosophy, but Religion? I don't think so....too much FAITH involved.
Now...I am waiting for the stones.....Feel free to throw them at me! | |
|
| If you don't care......
Posted: 1/4/2008 6:46:32 PM |
Now...I am waiting for the stones.....Feel free to throw them at me!
Would never do that. Wouldn't throw stones at you. Wouldn't throw stones at your ego. They are simply one and the same in my view. Unless you somehow think that our egos, we all have them you know, are somehow separate from ourselves as a person. To throw stones at your ego, I believe, would be no different than attacking you personally. I would throw stones at your debating style though, as I already have. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 1:29:24 AM | i have to admit that I understand your concern. but, keep in mind, that incredibly large segments of society are doing this sort of stuff in the real world. religion is a battle ground. believers and athiests, muslims and christians, etc...
whats happening here with religion happens everywhere in the real world.
maybe a good place to start is by finding out what people from different creeds do agree about, if anything. if it's a problem, maybe it's also a solution. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:09:07 AM | RE msg 45 by jrbogie:
Of course. I am surprised that after all of my postings on these forums that you have read that you would even begin to think that I would not fully agree with you. I am glad you say this. It is not obvious to me.
Of course I am not allowed to attack other posters. Nor would my morals and ethics allow me to. That is why I said that I will attack, "the positions of posters". Sscorpion, when did you begine to misread my posts so? You have always been fair in responding to the exact wording of posters in this forum for which I respect you greately. Now you are inserting and removing from context wording that I have used that in no way can be interpreted to a mindset of mine such as you are alleging. Please review as many posts of mine as you wish and present even one here where I have attacked anything other than another persons, belief, view, opinion or position. If I did so it was completely out of character for me and I will appologize to that person in public and in private. I am glad that you want to show others respect. However, attacking the positions of posters often becomes an attack on the poster, for the attack questions the integrity of belief of the poster.
Do you hear what you are saying? Are you really saying that to present an opinion here it has to meet your standard of objectivity? And in a religious forum at that? Are you now defending the opinions of the religious faithful as being objective? Since when has being taught unproven and unprovable thought processes such as a religious belief system been anything but highly SUBJECTIVE. Where is the objectivity in such teachings to be found. The bible? The koran? You don't really consider such feelings and opinions to be objective do you? Do you really? And regarding my feelings. I am going to do a search of my previous posts because I cannot recall ever posting my feelings here or on any other forum. Perhaps I am wrong and will indeed find an occasion in which I did. But if I did, it means that I have to be much more diligent in insuring that it never happens again. If you happen to find such a case during your search for my having made a claim or perpetuated a personal attack please let me know. It is true that there are many people who are subjective when it comes to their religious beliefs. As a young child, I found it difficult to be anything but objective. Blame it on Asperger's, or whatever else. The point is, that I seemed to lack the ability to just assume things as others did, and always had to ask "WHY?". I found that many people didn't like this. Funny thing was, most of the antagonism I experienced, was NOT antagonism at questioning religion. It was questioning people's social and moral values. When I asked someone why he believed in G-d, nearly all people weren't offended. But when I asked someone why he was going out with someone he didn't like, the guy would often threaten me. It soon became clear to me that the things that people were most subjective about, were the actions of their lives, and 90% of that had nothing to do with religion at all. I can still recall the conversation of 2 hours with someone who claimed that Evolution "proved" that G-d could not exist. I really wanted to understand this. So I kept trying. But the more I tried, the more I got stonewalled.
I won't deny that if you are a 10-year-old child, who had never been explained why you should believe in religion, that if you ask people, they won't have a better answer. But that is because the people a 10-year-old child usually asks, are his parents, his immediate family, and the people in his neighbourhood. Now, if you know something, you're going to want your child and your friends to know it too. So the mere fact that the 10-year-old HAS to ask why?, because he wasn't given the answers in the first place, means that neither do the people who brought him up, and neither do the people who get on with those people.
So, if you have to question things in the first place, then you can take it for granted that you will have to look beyond your little "pond".
The question that I have, is that if I could have been socially inept for so much of my life, and others seemed to do so much better in socialising and relationships than me, then how comes I figured out this simple piece of sense, and looked for knowledge outside of my little "pond"?
But then again, I cannot blame people. My late father never answered my questions, but he always searched for them and found them. His family would agree with you. They called him a "dreamer". But everyone I met who had known him, and smiled beautifully at the mention of his name. What can I say? I was shown early on the value of persistence, when it comes to knowledge. I just don't understand why people don't teach the value of persistence in looking for answers in our schools and colleges.
Great example but the definition of objective already was cleared up for me. Your suggestion here, I believe, is that to say "some men" is objective because indeed some men only want sex. And you go on to say, if I read you correctly, that to use the term "all men" would be to suggest an absolute which is always subjective. How about this example where a christian is explaining his belief about hell.
Some men will go to heaven.
Some men will go to hell.
Neither statement claims an absolute. But are either objective opinions? Or would you consider them to be nothing more than that persons feelings? And if that is the case, why are you so tolerant of the faithful here and suddenly so onesided about objectivity? In the end, I've found that most people seem to be subjective today, about their beliefs on religion, beliefs on science, and beliefs on morality. I question doctors constantly, because I believe that they are scientists, so their knowledge always needs to grow. But all I find is that such people don't like being attacked. When I was a child, scientists seemed to welcome questions. Now, it seems they welcome only complete and unquestioning belief in their opinions. Either that, or those who claim things in the name of science do so.
I have the utmost respect for science. But I have little respect for most scientists.
I have the utmost respect for religion. But I have little respect for most religious people.
I suppose that is at least one difference between me and a lot of people. I respect knowledge. I don't respect people who claim to know, and then act difference. But I still respect the knowledge they claim to speak on behalf of. I just think those people are liars. Let me give you an example:
If someone sells dangerous toys to children, and breaks the law, and says that he is a good citizen, who follows the laws of the government, do you belive him? Do you then conclude that the government allows the sale of dangerous toys to children? If not, do you look up the law? If the law says he cannot do this, and he does this, does that mean that the government supports him in this? If I were to take that viewpoint, then I would have to say the government is the most corrupt thing I've ever seen, because there are hundreds, nay thousands of reports of people who've spent years in prison for crimes they never committed, and treated atrociously. Some died there. Some people got arrested by the police of rape or of paedophilia, the arrest was dropped, and then these people's homes were bombed. Some of them were pushed so much that they committed suicide and no-one is surprised, because that kind of pressure could drive almost any person to suicide. Look at what is reported in Guantanamo Bay, or the English version. Look at the Mustard Gas experiments done on soldiers in World War I without their knowledge or permission. Do you know what mustard gas is like? You know what a bit of mustard can do. Now imagine 10,000 times the amount. Unbelievable pain, that destroys the lungs. Then consider that only since democratic government came about, we had 2 global wars, something that never happened before. More people died in those 2 wars than in 2 thousand wars. All this is the tip of the iceberg. I could claim that the concept of democratic government is the most psychopathic killing machine to have ever come across the Earth.
But I don't. I don't blame democracy or democratic government. I blame the people who make these horrible decisions, or the people who directly appoint them. I don't blame the public, 'cause most don't have a clue what these people are really like.
I take the same viewpoint in religion. The Pope is like a Catholic President. The Cardinals like Catholic Senators. The corruption is about the same. Just that the Catholic Church is not run with nearly as much spin. In the UK, every politician speaks and does pretty much what his "spin doctor" says, the spin doctors say whatever will get votes and good PR, even if it is the opposite of what that politician does.
But I'm one of the few people who think like this. Even other people of my faith despise my ideas, because I would be friends with a respectful atheist and a respectful Muslim, and would not be friends with a scumbag who was of my own faith.
So, you see I'm not tolerant of the faithful at all. It's just that the religious seem to take an unfair bashing on POF, so I'm just balancing things out. I've defended atheism from Bible-thumpers on POF too. I used to get a lot of them coming to my door trying to convert me, after my father died, so I know how insidious some can be. But the people who are the real problem are at the top. They convince the people at the bottom of their beliefs.
Nor to me. But on a percentage basis, if I were to compare the christians, muslims and jews that I know personally, with the buddhists, atheists and agnostics that I know personally, and I know many of both, I can honestly say that to my knowledge one hundred percent of the non believers in god live up to my moral and ethical standards and less than half of the god fearing come close. Trouble is, that I know of plenty of non-believers who are up to no good. Also, I know plenty of religious people who are really good people.
Could this be the source of our different viewpoints? | |
|
| why not?
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:13:43 AM |
My logic has no limits ( this is why I find some people's thinking ( Scorpio Mover for instance) too much of a strain to comprehend). I don't understand this. The only problem most people said about me, tends to be that I analyse things too much, and am far too logical for most people's taste. It tends to wear people out. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 1:07:13 PM |
I just don't understand why people don't teach the value of persistence in looking for answers in our schools and colleges. Some few teachers will, but such things will be unlikely t become part of the national curriculum. To answer why, start by asking yourself who chooses what goes on that curriculum and ask yourself what their motivations truly are.
So, if you have to question things in the first place, then you can take it for granted that you will have to look beyond your little "pond".
The question that I have, is that if I could have been socially inept for so much of my life, and others seemed to do so much better in socialising and relationships than me, then how comes I figured out this simple piece of sense, and looked for knowledge outside of my little "pond"? Quite simply, a different perspective, a different way of interpreting the world, makes some things more clear and others less clear. Children develop unevenly.
I think the problems with discussing the topic of religion are that it is highly emotive for many people. There is a great deal of passion and anger and enthusiasm as people are discovering new beliefs, railing against having been deceived as they lose old beliefs or defending their own current beliefs which are dear to them.
My partner regularly gets involved in religion forums whilst I have very little interest in them. To me, the idea of god or not god is simply not very relevant and I don't feel any need whatever to defend my beliefs to anyone or to attack anyone else's beliefs, or to attempt to near a greater truth through debate. The kind of person that chooses to debate religion naturally cares about it and thus they are very likely focused on looking forward and trying to discover, looking at staying still and defending their stance, or looking back upset at the problems religiosity has caused them in one way or another. The indifferent majority who are not emotional about the topic, don't tend to post here and this is why the forums tend to be so emotional -- lots of emotional people pressing each others buttons. Still, that is not always a bad thing, by any means. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 2:16:41 PM | I am glad that you want to show others respect. However, attacking the positions of posters often becomes an attack on the poster, for the attack questions the integrity of belief of the poster.
Quite impossible for me to reply without an example of where you think one of my attacks question the integrity of a poster. So I won't. If you meant to say the "inegrity OR belief", we all make typos, instead of "integrity OF belief" then I would say that attacking one's BELIEF, view, opinion, position, feeling or whatever in a forum is precisely what forums are all about. If one has something to say about their belief and wishes for everybody else to keep quite and simply listen and agree without attacking his BELIEF, then he can begin his own church and preach his own sermon. but if that is his intent, this is one dumb place to be preaching. If you meant to say exactly as you typed, integrity OF belief, then I simply have no idea what that is.
When I was a child, scientists seemed to welcome questions. Now, it seems they welcome only complete and unquestioning belief in their opinions. Either that, or those who claim things in the name of science do so.
I'm sorry if that has been your experienced. I myself have experienced nothing of the sort. I can listen to a professional in the field of one of the sciences for hours on end as he/she goes on about new discoveries and theories while all the time admonishing us that we should keep in mind that like everything in science, that particular subject will continue to always undergo testing and reverification. Albert Einstein never would have been able to correct Isaac Newton's explanation of gravity otherwise.
Trouble is, that I know of plenty of non-believers who are up to no good. Also, I know plenty of religious people who are really good people.
Could this be the source of our different viewpoints?
I can't imagin how since I agree with every word you say here. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 9:10:32 PM | TO jrbogie:
Quite impossible for me to reply without an example of where you think one of my attacks question the integrity of a poster. So I won't. If you meant to say the "inegrity OR belief", we all make typos, instead of "integrity OF belief" then I would say that attacking one's BELIEF, view, opinion, position, feeling or whatever in a forum is precisely what forums are all about. If one has something to say about their belief and wishes for everybody else to keep quite and simply listen and agree without attacking his BELIEF, then he can begin his own church and preach his own sermon. but if that is his intent, this is one dumb place to be preaching. If you meant to say exactly as you typed, integrity OF belief, then I simply have no idea what that is. I don't want to find fault with you, as you seem so agreeable, and I'm almost sure that if I could have in the past, I might have completely misunderstood things. The trouble is that it is one thing to attack someone's belief on all sorts of dating situations, or correcting them on certain scientific facts. But when it comes to their beliefs in how to live their life, such as on the basis of religion or G-d, you are questioning the beliefs that form the reasons for the way they life their life.
I'll give you an example: I personally believe that a lot of terrorist acts comes as a result of the acts of certain governments in the West, including my own. I've stated this on threads in the Current Events threads and got bashed. If I went further, and said that it was down to the very way of life of the UK and the USA, I'd get hammered, because if people were to agree with me, it could make them feel like their life was lived for nothing, and was worthless.
You may find it irrational, but if I started taking apart atheism, and claiming that anyone who didn't believe in G-d was irrational, you'd be offended too.
So it's very, very, very important to go easy on people in these areas, because 99 times out of 100, you won't be perfectly clear, they will take your words without "a pinch of salt", and an argument will ensue.
Belief in the Bible, is only one area. Zionism, the West Bank, the right to a Unified Ireland, and many, many other issues are more touchy to the people involved. The only difference is that there aren't any forums devoted to Ireland, or Israel, or you'd see these types of arguments all the time, from Catholics vs Protestants on an Ireland forum, and from Israelis vs Palestinians on an Israel forum, or from Zionists vs anti-Zionists on an Israel forum.
The only reason you see these arguments is that there is a Religion forum, and there are a lot of believers in the Bible, and people who believe that the Bible has no credibility.
I'm sorry if that has been your experienced. I myself have experienced nothing of the sort. I can listen to a professional in the field of one of the sciences for hours on end as he/she goes on about new discoveries and theories while all the time admonishing us that we should keep in mind that like everything in science, that particular subject will continue to always undergo testing and reverification. Albert Einstein never would have been able to correct Isaac Newton's explanation of gravity otherwise. I haven't been around anyone like that for quite a while. Anyway, my belief is that Newton and Einstein would have exchanged ideas, and swapped notes, because Newton's theory of gravitation was not accurate enough for the data he used to build it, and Einstein had access to Mathematical theories that allowed him to formulate Relativity that was just not around until well after Newton's death.
I can't imagin how since I agree with every word you say here. I'm just glad that we can get on, especially since we don't agree. It always gladdens my heart to know that I can get on with someone who doesn't agree with me. Makes me think that one day, we can all learn to get on with each other. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/5/2008 11:30:18 PM | Language.......
Yes, "religion/supernatural" is the topic of discussion/debate on this forum. It isn't however, a "religious" forum, nor is the purpose one of fellowship or promotion any religion or supernatural ideas OUTSIDE the purpose of being a topic of discussion/debate.
well it wasent more than seven post till the attackers started taking apart the stories and trying to say they were not miracles ... well I say they were to the people that experienced them and that is all the OP asked for...analyzing the miracles or perceived miracles is off topic .
Not really, the stories and topic are fair game, the participants are not - whack each other's ideas around all you want, ...within *reason, but this only goes for the message, not the messenger. What is off-topic is if the thread is hijacked to attack a person, or an idea other than what is put forth in the OP.
I didn't see the thread, BUT, often "doubt" is seen as a bad thing in religion or religious circles, but "doubt" is a healthy part of *reason, and the dialectic, ....this being a discussion/debate forum, this is the form that is expected.
Constant off-topic "drive-by" posting IS considered trolling, this goes for the religious and non-religious alike - but, "doubt" is not a personal attack, it's a product of discussion/debate.
i quoted in my Op asking for miracles there is no reason for non believers to debate religion or analyze other posters religion
You can't exclude anybody from a thread, that's a big nono here.
There will be disagreement in all the forums, what IS expected is decorum and civility, and if there are those trolling threads in this forum for the sole purpose of insulting other's beliefs instead of discussing/debating them in *reasonable manner, ...they can expect a short stay.
There are those who can debate well, and know HOW to not cross the "line" by understanding HOW to debate (hint - logic is a friend here), ...that they can surgically take apart a statement and rip it to shreds does not mean they are attacking anybody.
...its like if the OP asked what is your favorite religious song
What's your favourite "_________" ?
Type posts-
...could be "scripture", "veda", "hymn", "debunker", "demon", etc, ....these aren't discussion/debate, ...they're surveys, so; not valid topics to begin with.
*reason/reasonable -these words to be taken literally here, noun, adjective, and intrinsic verb, and how they relate to discussion/debate/decorum.
late™
 | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:27:19 AM |
You say that as if it really counts, as if it really matters, as if it's important that people live to your standards.
To me it does really count. It very much matters. People absolutely must live according to my standards or I don't allow them near me. I can see why that confuses you though. | |
|
| why is this topic called religion
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:38:36 AM | Scorpiomover:
I analyse things too much, and am far too logical for most people's taste. It tends to wear people out Exactly!!!! but logic is not the only food for thought.....that is my argument. Fact are facts but logic comes from the brain.....why would that be the main ingredient in a debate? Sometimes, but not always, unless of course we are talking about the Aristotelian logic....( this one is a swan, all swans are white, this one is white....etc). There is also space for intuition, feelings and perceptions ( "my logic" includes them).
Above mess.
People absolutely must live according to my standards .........how about giving people the benefit of the doubt?  I am sure your standards are under constant scrutiny by you.....meaning that they evolve. | |
|
| Logic and Faith?
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:26:47 AM | | Logic to me means: judgement - wisdom -sense. It takes into consideration that thoughts come from contact, feelings, perception, then mind elaboration. (But could also be -as a friend commented- that I keep my private dictionary....so at times I become in-comprehensible) . Religion is very much a matter of faith and confidence, at times based on reason, at times based on blind faith, depending. In fact FAITH, conceived as confidence or trust, is the mother of all activities toward the realization of an ideal. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
